Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

m.guardiannews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 245 posts

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#231

Post by [deleted] »

npsimons wrote: post #199
ajdecon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of positive things about HN, without it being "real news". The major value for me is that it is (often) interesting . I learn a lot here that helps me find new ways to think about technology and the web industry. But it is not: * neutral: there are some pretty obvious biases, though they aren't consistent * need-to-know: there's nothing I've learned on HN which has been strictly necessary to me, thoug…

It's really funny, because HN is much like slashdot at it's high point (I would argue it's even better). Many parallels exist; for example, people will claim "groupthink" (in this case "bias"), but minimize "inconsistencies" when they disprove their point. As for need to know, might I be so bold as to suggest that if you haven't learned anything of use at HN, perhaps it's not suited for your interests/profession?

[deleted]

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#232

Post by podperson »

bbbhn wrote: post #129
podperson wrote: post #124

Seems like the article is true for "bad" news -- e.g. Daily newspapers, cable news, and nightly news (which I have gone without for over ten years). Most of the criticisms of news in the article do not apply to the news sources I consume, although perhaps they shouldn't be called news so as to avoid confusion. My favorite is the New Yorker, which frequently breaks major stories despite being (or because it is) a week…

Are you serious? The Daily Show is no more "news" than Hannity is.

I've never watched Hannity so I really can't make an informed reply. There's no question that the Daily Show has a Liberal point of view, but there's a difference between having a point of view and intellectual dishonesty. Humor is a trap in portraying the truth because the funny thing may not be the true thing, but it's less of a trap than the Cable news cycle.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#233

Post by moheeb »

gizzlon wrote: post #143
neltnerb wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked into this and experimented with it a while back. My conclusion was that: a. If something is actually important to me, I will find out about it whether I read the news or not. b. Keeping in mind (a), any news that I don't hear about through other channels is not urgent. c. A quick "news" piece will have almost no depth or context that could actually give the story relevance. And will very often just be outrig…

How do you test a) ? How do you know what you don't know? :) It seems like you're saying that something is not important if you do not find out about it..

What I do is not follow news of any sort. Then a few years later I realize I am still alive...must not have been important!

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#234

Post by arikrak »

arikrak wrote: post #11

Most of those reasons seem exaggerated, except one: News wastes time. It's just to easy and effortless to click on news stories and bam - there goes 45 minutes of time. Does anyone know a good program that blocks you from e.g. wasting more than 25 minutes reading news each day? Browser tools are too easy to bypass to be effective. (Editing the hosts file works, but then you can't visit those sites at all.)

There are some apps that let you block sites effectively for a block of time (like selfcontrol for mac), but I didn't see any that monitor your daily usage and then block the sites. (Though various extensions do that.)

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#236

Post by Sodaware »

astrodust wrote: post #200
edw519 wrote: post #187

With 7 billion people in the world, it's very likely that these things will happen today: - someone will get killed in a horrible car accident - a child will be killed in a freak accident - someone will die from cancer, leaving much grieving behind - someone will molest a child - someone will lose all their money in a scam - someone will get raped - someone will be killed by a never-to-be-found hit-and-run drunk driv…

What's the list for Hacker News?

  - Why everybody should learn to code
  - Why everybody should not learn to code

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#237

Post by miked »

Zelphyr wrote: post #214
bluedino wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about it this way - what if someone is being raped every day in the parking ramp at your office, or murdered on the street you ride your bike to work each morning? If you heard about it on the news, you could change your route to work or ride with a buddy to increase your safety.

Nobody is going to be raped in the parking ramp at your office EVERY DAY. It may happen once but statistically it'll never happen again in that location. Someone may be murdered on the street you ride your bike to work each morning. And, unless you live in Compton its unlikely to ever happen again. And if you do live in Compton why the hell are you riding your bike to work through a war zone you moron?! :) But lets j…

>> Unfortunately, in the day of Fox News, being an informed populace is even becoming difficult.

Equality doesn't just mean that everybody has the same wealth, regardless of how hard they work. This is superficial. It means everyone has to think the same way. That's the only way we'll ever get true equality, and we won't get that until everyone's getting the same information. Conformity, equality, obedience: these must be our core values. Fox News must be stopped.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#238

Post by sc00ter »

bluedino wrote: post #201
edw519 wrote: post #187

With 7 billion people in the world, it's very likely that these things will happen today: - someone will get killed in a horrible car accident - a child will be killed in a freak accident - someone will die from cancer, leaving much grieving behind - someone will molest a child - someone will lose all their money in a scam - someone will get raped - someone will be killed by a never-to-be-found hit-and-run drunk driv…

Think about it this way - what if someone is being raped every day in the parking ramp at your office, or murdered on the street you ride your bike to work each morning? If you heard about it on the news, you could change your route to work or ride with a buddy to increase your safety.

The 12 year olds have arrived. HN is doomed.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#239

Post by totmann »

That really depends on what kind of news we are reading, and when we are reading, sometimes skimming and scanning is a good way to save time if you are just to comprehend the main theme of the news, or decide whether you will continue to read. But, obviously, over-read the news will kill your brains like chronic diseases.

Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier

#240

Post by vacri »

koide wrote: post #196
vacri wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the absolute curses of the internet is that it has near-completely killed off the ability to speak in metaphor.

I truly don't find your metaphor (if it can be called that at all) apt, thus my question.

'speaking in metaphor' is a bit self-referential and is another way of saying 'talking around the issue without having to exactly specify everything in a bullet-pointed list that is clear to even the most basic speaker of the language, all the while allowing for all the usual disclaimers to be applied, the most salient being that the item in question is a general trend that has been noted by the utterer, and not a cast-iron ruling applicable to every possible combination of subject parties when applied in a Condorcet-style fashion'. It's a kind of shorthand.

As for 'what do I mean', I mean that I find people who actually follow news (and I mean in general, not news junkies) generally have a better understanding of why one event follows another, are generally more worldly in that way. You can of course find exceptions, because these are humans and there is little that is absolute or even near absolute in that realm, but I think that 'following news' and 'having a more worldly view' are two items that are not completely orthogonal; the relationship between them is a positive one and is not lost in statistical noise.

Post reply on HN